Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

Login to MSE Forum

Join the MSE Forum

Skimlinks adds tracking to some, primarily retailers' links, to show they come from this forum. For some retailers, instead of using Skimlinks to turn the link into a tracked link, we use affiliated links set up through other third parties. Then if it generates revenue from that, this site is paid. The links don't change the content, or what you see or track individual data ? but they do help fund this free forum. So we hope you choose to switch it on. See the full Skimlinks factsheet for more.

Yes, I understand that. It was the use of the term 're-register' which threw me as opposed to transferring out; perhaps the re-registration term is the more business appropriate but not one I (as a layperson) was familiar with.

So, your assertion that you should not sell and just re-register cannot be held as absolutely appropriate, i.e. the full costs of transfers and the risk of being out of the market needs to be considered; also, the probability that a transfer involving lines of stocks "generally" appear to take longer than an account transfer of just cash (historically has tended to be the case). Although the timewilltell recent experience has cast a significant doubt over my above comment about transfer times.

Perhaps the investment industry have implemented 'Faster Transfers' just like the banking industry implemented 'Faster Payments'...

Apologies Cloud_Dog and makes sense, thanks for calling it out ... the term was used on me when going through the process myself and has since just stuck I guess !

In my experience, the cost of transferring the stock was nil because the new provider covered the Exit Fee costs with HL for me - so made sense to stay in the market rather than taking cash out ... and the timing factor against the backdrop of the longer term goal of better ROI wasn't greater to make me want to expedite it by using the cash route.

The timing difference between Cashing Out & Transferring Stock these days isn't vastly different either I believe.

Just didn't make sense to me ... and if its outside an ISA there are Capital Gains implications too.

I just posted sourced data over the last 15 years! Then you reply with no sources and cherry picked data over a 10 year period.

Your data "looked at “growth” funds, those that aim simply to increase in value over time, and did not include income funds".

It also does not take into account survivorship bias.

It compared vs the "best performing" 10 year old tracker for each segment over the period, we are not told which trackers and the article itself goes on to say:

“

Is our data reliable?
Yes, but as Prof Blake said, the bull market since 2009 may have helped active funds.
...At the start of that period tracker funds were much more expensive than they are today. This will have put their average cost over the period up and reduced their returns after fees were taken into account.
“It will be a different story over the next 10 years. Active funds now have a much bigger hurdle to beat, given that today the cheapest trackers cost as little as 0.09pc and active funds tend to charge 1pc.

The article you quote is from 5th April 2015. Here is what one evidenceinvestor.co.uk had to say about the 2016 year results...

“

Nearly nine out of ten UK active equity funds underperformed their benchmark over one year. The exact number is 87.22%, which represents a four-fold increase on 2015.

UK active funds have also fared poorly over longer periods, with 61.64% of funds underperforming over three years, 50.0% over five years and 74.19% over ten.

Average UK active equity fund performance also lagged the benchmark over the calendar year, with active funds delivering an average annual return of 11.15%, which is 5.95% less than the S&P United Kingdom BMI over the same period.

Think about that for a moment. The average active fund underperformed the index by almost 6%. Clearly the S&P United Kingdom BMI isn’t an investable index; there is a cost to investing in passively managed funds, but that cost is very small compared to what an active investor pays in fund management charges and transaction costs. In effect, that means active investors need their chosen fund managers to outperform the index this year by almost as much they lagged the index last year just to keep up with a typical passive investor.

For the industry, these figures clearly aren’t good. 2016, we were told, provided near-perfect conditions for active managers to outperform, and yet they failed miserably.

No, the performance of UK fund managers is not significantly worse than managers elsewhere. For example, 88.25% of euro-denominated actively managed European equity funds have underperformed the benchmark over ten years. But it’s clearly wrong for anyone, including my fund retailer friend, to suggest that UK managers are somehow immune to what is very much a global problem of active underperformance.

If you are going to read one link from my post, make it the last one. The evidence is clear. 5 likes to your poor response is laughable also, literally shows why the hedge funds are still lapping up people's hard earned money only to underperform the markets.

How do we know which actively managed funds are best, as I thought we can't really use past performance as a guide? Seems even more difficult to know what selection of active funds to pick for a portfolio to beat a good multi-asset passive fund. For instance, can you list a portfolio of actively managed funds (or a mixture of active and passive) for a £100k investment with an overall 40/60 equity/bond allocation, that can better a VLS40 over the long term. I'm not saying there isn't one, but if it's that easy to identify such funds I'd be interested in knowing what would be the best active and passive funds to include in such a portfolio.

IMO you have to do your own research. A good point about past performance, as a guide, because VLS funds have only been around the a limited period in investments terms of about 5 years whereas for example you can track most active funds back over a 10 year period. Also, we don't know if VLS will outperform its competitors like L&G Multi Index or HSBC Global Strategy funds over a longer period - only time will tell?

I personally hold quite a few active funds in different geographical regions and am more than happy with the performance even after fees, however, I also hold some passive funds (and not all of these are Vanguard) therefore the new Vanguard platform is not really suitable for me with a portfolio of different funds from a diverse range of sectors and geographical regions.

The new Vanguard platform is absolutely great for Vanguard products/fans but less interesting for people who like to hold a diverse range of funds from many investment companies. Although, I do totally agree that reducing the platform charges for a percentage fee based platform can only be good for the industry as a whole so come on Fidelity please 'reduce your platform fee'!

I seem to manage it regularly. As do many other investors in the UK. Mainly as they are not blinkered to the passive bias that some people like you have. Where passive is best, it should be used. Where managed is best, it should be used.

If you are going to read one link from my post, make it the last one. The evidence is clear. 5 likes to your poor response is laughable also, literally shows why the hedge funds are still lapping up people's hard earned money only to underperform the markets.

IMO you have to do your own research. A good point about past performance, as a guide, because VLS funds have only been around the a limited period in investments terms of about 5 years whereas for example you can track most active funds back over a 10 year period. Also, we don't know if VLS will outperform its competitors like L&G Multi Index or HSBC Global Strategy funds over a longer period - only time will tell?

The bold is mine......I wish we could get away from terms like "out perform". Chasing return is usually a path to failure or at best frustration. Once the investor realizes that the vast majority of market pundits and active managers deal in numerology they will live a far happier investing life. The best of the bad alternatives to predicting the future is to buy the markets and put your fate in the hands of the averages and the standard deviations.

The performance of two index trackers should be the same as should be the performance of two multi-asset trackers with a similar asset mix....so choose your asset allocation, keep fees low and the funds diverse and stop worrying about performance.

Yes, I'd be surprised if Vanguard could make a big enough dent in their customer base. Most customers must still be largely invested in active funds, even though HL have stopped preaching that passives are the devil's work (coincidentally just at the time when trail commission was banned).

Good news for people in more expensive platforms but if you have a largish amount in Vanguard funds with eg iWeb or Halifax it would still be MORE expensive to have them with Vanguard and their % based structure.

Good news for people in more expensive platforms but if you have a largish amount in Vanguard funds with eg iWeb or Halifax it would still be MORE expensive to have them with Vanguard and their % based structure.

I want to move my ISA, I want to get a decent divided how do I check the Vanguard units to see which pay the higher divided. I can see how you pick a trust ie 60/40, 20/80 etc but I cannot find anywhere to say what the divided rate is I am looking for between 4 and 5%

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

We don't AS a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.